Madon Ch Ray Vs the State of Assam and Othrs

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010009862026

¶3

undefined

¶4

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/604/2026

¶6

MADON CH RAY S/O-LATE KESHAB CHANDRA RAY, RESIDENT OF GAURIPUR, WARD NO-4, POST OFFICE-GAURIPUR, POLICE STATION-GOURIPUR, DISTRICT-DHUBRI,ASSAM, PIN-783331

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM,IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,GUWAHATI-6

¶9

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

¶10

FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6

¶11

3:THE COMMISSIONER ANDSECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM

¶12

ADMINISTRATIVEREFORMS TRAINING AND PENSION PUBLICGRIEVANCES DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 4:THE CHIEF ENGINEER IRRIGATION ASSAM CHANDMARI GUWAHATI-3

¶13

Page No.# 2/5

¶14

5:THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER

¶15

ELECTRICIALIRRIGATION GUWAHATI-3

¶16

6:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

¶17

DHUBRI GOLAKGANJ-GOURIPURIRRIGATION GOURIPURDIVISION

¶18

7:THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (AAND E) ASSAM MAIDAMGAON BELTOLA GUWAHATI-2

¶19

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. C BHATTACHARYYA, MR R DAS

¶20

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, IRRIGATION, SC, AG (A AND E),SC, FINANCE,GA, ASSAM

¶21

BEFORE

¶22

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶23

ORDER

¶24

09.02.2026

¶25

Heard Mr. C. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N Upadhaya, learned Standing Counsel, Irrigation Department.

¶26

2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner who had served as a casual Muster Roll worker under the office of the Executive Engineer, Dhubri Division (Irrigation), Gouripur. He was appointed on 01.02.1992 and he was regularized as a Helper with effect from 22.07.2005 by order dated 06.10.2005. He retired from his service with effect from 29.02.2024 on superannuation. When the pension papers were prepared the gross period of service was shown as 32 years 1 months and 0 days and the net qualifying service was shown as 26 years 1 months and 0 days. The last pay of the petitioner was reflected as

¶27

Page No.# 3/5

¶28

Rs.25,600/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Six Hundred only) and accordingly, in the pension payment order, the pension of the petitioner was shown as Rs.15,300/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand three hundred only). According to the petitioner the amount of pension that he has received is less than the amount he is entitled to receive under the provisions of law. It is submitted that the respondent authorities have deducted his initial 6 (six) years from the total period of his service while calculating the amount of pension payable to the writ petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said deduction of 6 (six) years of service has been held impermissible by this Court in WP(C) No.1089/2015 (Sanjita Roy vs. the State of Assam & Ors.) decided on 04.12.2018, and the respondent authorities were directed to determine the continuous length of service of the petitioners as Muster Roll Workers and if such service meets the bench marks of 20 (twenty) years then the benefit of pension should be made available to them without any deduction from the total period of service. This view was also upheld by a Division Bench of this Court by Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2021 passed in W.A. No.18/2021 (Binapani Das vs. the State of Assam & Ors.).

¶29

3. An observation was made that the pendency of the writ petition shall not be a bar for the respondents to re-calculate the admissible pension and admissible gratuity in respect of the petitioner.

¶30

4. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The pleadings available on record have been perused.

¶31

5. The learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the position in law as has been laid down in Sanjita Roy (supra) and which was upheld in Binapani Das (supra). In Sanjita Roy (supra) the Coordinate Bench of this Court held that the deduction of 6 (six) years of initial service from the total services

¶32

Page No.# 4/5

¶33

rendered by an incumbent while calculating the period of service towards eligibility of grant of pension of Muster Roll Workers have been held to be bad. The Coordinate Bench held that such deduction of initial period of 6 (six) years of service from the total period of services rendered is contrary to law. The judgment in Sanjita Roy (supra) was passed on 04.12.2018. In subsequent writ petitions filed, other Coordinate Benches held that the benefits of Sanjita Roy (supra) will be effective only from the date of the said Judgment i.e. 04.12.2018. One such order was brought to the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.18/2021 and the Division Bench of this Court in Binapani Das (supra) (W.A. No.18/2021) by Judgment and Order dated 26.02.2021 while upholding the proposition laid down in Sanjita Roy (supra), further held that once the benefit has been granted by way of a judgment, the same cannot be curtailed to deny the benefit of other similarly situated persons when the original judgment itself did not restrict such benefit. It was held that the orders of the Courts are always retrospective in nature unless it is specifically made prospective in the order itself. The relevant paragraph of the said Judgment and Order is extracted herein below:

¶34

“9. An order of the court is always retrospective in nature, unless it is specifically made prospective in the order itself. This is because the courts do not legislate, they only interpret an existing law. This is unlike the laws made by the State Legislature and the Parliament, which are always prospective in nature, unless again, the law itself makes it retrospective. The original judgement (dated 04.12.2018), passed in WP(C) 1089/2015 (Sanjita Roy vs. State of Assam and Others), does not give benefit to the petitioners from a prospective date. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the order dated 04.12.2018 was retrospective in nature and it would include all similarly situated muster roll workers irrespective of their dates of retirement, provided they are covered by the benefits given to them earlier, and were already availing pension.”

¶35

6. That apart, the Government of Assam by Office Memorandum dated

¶36

31.07.2010 provided that the part of their past Muster Roll services prior to

¶37

Page No.# 5/5

¶38

regularisation have to be counted for the purpose of pension in terms of PPG Department’s OM No.PPG(P)88/2009/2 dated 20.05.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation by the regularized Muster Roll Workers.

¶39

7. Considering the limited prayer before this Court and upon careful perusal of the writ petition including the judgments passed in Sanjita Roy (supra) and Binapani Das (supra), this Court is of the view that the issue raised in the writ petition is squarely covered by the Judgment and Order passed in Sanjita Roy (supra) which was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Binapani Das (supra).

¶40

8. In that view of the matter, the writ petition stands closed with a direction to the respondent authorities to examine the claim of the petitioner and if it is found to be correct then the deduction of 6 years of service of the petitioner shall be calculated as continuous period of service and the amount of pension, gratuity and all other retiral benefits payable to the petitioner be revaluated and the appropriate amount payable to the petitioner taking into consideration his entire period of service in view of the Judgment and Order passed in Sanjita Roy (supra) and Binapani Das (supra) be released to him without any further delay. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶41

9. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶42

JUDGE

¶43

Comparing Assistant

Madon Ch Ray v. the State of Assam and Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madon Ch Ray v. the State of Assam and Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rupeswar Saikia and 55 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 20 Ors.

MD Shoriful Islam Vs the State of Assam and Others

Ajit Basumatary Vs the State of Assam and othrs

Dipa Sharma Chakraborty Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Rajib Basumatary Vs the State of Assam

Sri Anand Kumar Pradhan Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.